Archive for July 2009

« Local in Ann Arbor home page

The Ann Arbor Media Flip

July 23, 2009

Today’s the day – the last day of publication for the Ann Arbor News.  Tomorrow the successor (it has the same publisher, at least) , AnnArbor.com, is formally initiated (they seem to be sneaking up on it today).  So – as I’ve noted in a couple of previous posts, it’ll be up to us to figure out how we get our news.  There’ll never be “the newspaper” again – or at least that particular reality doesn’t seem to be on the horizon.

Of course, this has provoked a good deal of soul-searching and plenty of trips down memory lane, including one by a former reporter, Jeff Mortimer, in the Ann Arbor Chronicle today. Regular readers of the Chronicle will remember a couple of heart-wrenching stories by its publisher, Mary Morgan, who was with the News for many years.   Arbor Update’s Juliew asks some very good questions along the line of What is a newspaper? What is a journalist? What is news?  There is a pretty good discussion, including submissions by actual journalists.  (Okay, I’ve stepped into the swamp of definitions.  A journalist is someone who actually investigates and reports, not someone who merely repeats what they’ve heard and offers opinions.)  (And since you’re asking, I consider myself to be teetering just on the edge of that, but I’m getting a lot of my reporting from other people, and I definitely have opinions.)

So that still leaves us with the question – how do we find out what is going on – the news and the background behind the news?  We’ve been listing sites that seem to convey some actual news about the Ann Arbor area, or at least aggregate it.  Today Ann Arbor Business Review will come off the list, since they are being submerged into AnnArbor.com.

A new addition:  The Michigan Daily.   I didn’t think of it earlier because, frankly, I have not been in the habit of reading a “student newspaper”.  However, a glance at the site shows some pretty serious reporting, not just on student topics, and it is worthy of inclusion.

I won’t be adding our two major NPR stations, for different reasons.  WEMU is an important source for local news (especially listen in the morning just after the top and bottom of the hour); they have long sent reporters to meetings and done original and timely reporting on Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and Washtenaw County news.  But as far as I can tell, extensive coverage is not carried over to their website.  On the other hand, though WUOM has a good deal of “Michigan News” on their website, it is rarely local to Ann Arbor.

More blogs and online efforts are likely to pop into this vacuum.  The Ann Arbor News says that Tom Gantert, a longtime reporter for the News, is starting an online political journal called The Michigan Reporter – which he hopes will be funded by grants.  Not a good beginning to read his quote about it.  It is clear between that and his comments on Arbor Update that this transition is not going well for him.

Then there are alternative newsweeklies/newsmonthlies.  Ann Arbor has had a string of them.  The Ann Arbor Observer, of course, has news as well as other types of features, and is still mostly a print publication.  (We’ve put the online version, ArborWeb, on the blogroll.)For many years, one could pick up Agenda, a liberal monthly, free at some newstands.  I haven’t seen it for a long time, though it is still listed as extant.  More recently, I’ve seen a well-produced GLBT paper, Between the Lines. I’m not sure that it is still being printed, but I don’t get to the places like coffee shops where it is likely to be found.  There is also Current, vaguely in the free shopper category, but has finally gotten its website up so that one can read the features and reviews online.

Maybe next someone should start an alternative publication like that now being read in Flint.  It is being passed out for free by volunteers – just like the old broadsides back in the days of the American Revolution.

Update: Today’s Arborweb (Ann Arbor Observer) and Ann Arbor Chronicle have reciprocal links to one another.  Connectivity lives!

Second Update: The Ann Arbor Chronicle has added the Lucy Ann Lance (1290 AM) blog to its “local news” links.

Third Update: The A2Journal, which was supposed to be a print publication delivered to homes weekly, also has a web presence.  We didn’t have a delivery last week (after receiving them for two weeks).  It’s not clear how much actual reporting they are doing.

Fourth Update: The Ann Arbor Chronicle provided this link to a Time Magazine story on the death of the Ann Arbor News.  It reports that the move was a bold business decision rather than a burial.

Categories: media, Trends
Tags:

Comments: 4 Comments

City Council and City Place

July 21, 2009

Two items appeared on Monday’s Council agenda that related in some way to City Place.  One was the resolution to approve the site plan.  The other was the moratorium on site plans under the current R4C zoning. (See the two previous posts for more discussion.)  Neither one passed.  Neither was defeated.  The story continues.

As expected, consideration of the City Place “by right” site plan was postponed, as requested by the developer.  Council retired into a closed session for attorney-client communications immediately after public comment.  When the City Place resolution came up on the agenda, CM Derezinski was prepared.  He moved to postpone until the second meeting in January (2010).  His postponement motion included a direction to staff to assist with delivery of yet another PUD application by the developer, Alex de Parry.

The actual text of the amendment:

“Based on a written request from the developer, dated July 17, 2009, I move that Council postpone consideration of the City Place site plan until the 2nd meeting in January, 2010, that Council direct Planning and Development Services to accept and process a PUD application for this site following its established procedures, and that if the developer wishes to withdraw the PUD application, that the City Place site plan be scheduled for public hearing and consideration within 35 days of receipt of a written request of the withdrawal from the developer.”

He also stated that there seemed to be a way open to satisfy both the needs of the petitioner and of the city (the neighborhood association was not mentioned).  CM Smith commented further that it must be a good compromise if no one is happy at the end.  That must have been an interesting closed session.  There was also discussion of appearance of the project on the agenda at any time with 35 days notice.

The moratorium in R4C/R2A zoned areas was postponed to August 6.  CM Derezinski made a strong pre-emptive statement that appeared to be laying out an argument that a moratorium was too difficult, too perilous to consider.  He called it “the nuclear option” – “don’t drop the bomb without serious consideration”.  Though CM Anglin’s comments in support of his motion were mostly directed toward the City Place development (somewhat moot at this point because of the expected postponement and possible withdrawal altogether of the “by right” R4C-based site plan), others made points about the broader impact of a moratorium.  But they don’t seem to have read the resolution very carefully. CM Taylor, CM Rapundalo, and CM Derezinski all emphasized the notion that it affected 1300 separate properties, and they were pursuing an argument that this would affect the owners of each property equally, with obligations for notification and other complications requiring much more staff work.  CM Hohnke even compared this moratorium to the proposals for the Library Lot in a need for public input.  Yet the moratorium resolution clearly and specifically excludes most development proposals on these parcels:

RESOLVED, That City Council hereby imposes a moratorium on all new development that requires site plan approval, expansion of existing development that requires site plan approval, zoning changes, special exception uses, or other comparable zoning items, in the R4C and R2A zoning districts, and that any petitions or permits for such items be deferred for a period of 180 days from the date of this resolution in conjunction with the study and revision of the zoning ordinances pertaining to these districts, with the following exceptions:

· Approval of development, redevelopment, or the issuance of building permits for projects that do not require an approved site plan, including but not limited to construction of or addition to one single or two-family dwelling or accessory structure on a parcel

· Applications or permits which involve routine repair and maintenance for an existing permitted use

Clearly the only parcels that would be affected would be those for which a major development was proposed, and most of those parcel owners would not have a concern.  (Recall that the moratorium is proposed for only 180 days, and that there is also an appeals process.)  CM Briere very nicely stated that she personally favored the resolution, but that the constituents of the First Ward needed to have a chance to weigh in.  With some support from the Mayor, she was able to pull back the reconsideration date to August 6 (from August 17).

You had to be there department: Political theater may be one of the most underappreciated art forms.  I admit it, I’m a political junkie and love nothing more than a long meeting crackling with suspense over the amendment to the amendment.  But this meeting included lots of mixed media.  In addition to cleverly designed models designed to show how roofline relates to height, a speech with picket signs that somehow combined a boycott against Israel, support for Iranian democracy, and outrage over the demolition of historic houses,  public comment included Libby Hunter’s lovely soprano voice in a song to the tune of “Battle Hymn of the Republic” (I include only one of three verses):

Developers are coming to your neighborhood real soon

They will tear down all the houses and build apartments cheap and huge

More sewer backups, traffic jams and LEDs real cool

Development goes marching on

Council sat patiently until the audience then joined in (text had been passed out):

Glory, Glory Hallelujah

Density is coming to ya

You have no voice, council’s made the choice

Your neighborhood will succumb

Development goes marching on.

At this point the Mayor bestirred himself and protested that “only one person may speak at a time”, but the song went on to its conclusion without a gavel strike.

Update: Per request, I’ve attached the complete text of the song here.  I’ll fill in details about authorship as I am able to obtain them.

Second Update: I’ve pasted in the actual text of CM Derezinski’s amendment, which our city clerk, Jacqueline Beaudry, graciously provided.

Third Update: The Ann Arbor Chronicle’s account of the meeting includes a useful chronology of the City Place project.

Fourth Update: The Development Hymn now on YouTube for your listening enjoyment.

Categories: Neighborhoods
Tags: ,

Comments: 6 Comments

City Place and the R4C Zoning Classification

July 18, 2009

As was discussed here earlier, an enduring issue in the background of the debate over the City Place proposed development has been the role of the Central Area Plan in determining how the Germantown area – and all the city’s neighborhoods near the downtown core – should be developed.  Sadly, the zoning map was never revised to reflect the goals of the CAP.  Specifically, the predominant zoning, R4C, allows for much greater density than that indicated by a reading of the CAP.  Worse, in combination with a rather labored definition of a “household” in our code, R4C allows a peculiar configuration into a “housing unit” designed solely for student occupants, with individual locked bedrooms adjoining a central living area.  It is not a form of apartment design that is likely to be used by other demographics at any time in the future, and provides for a very high income from one “housing unit”.  So the R4C, when applied to a neighborhood of homeowners, will create high-density buildings that will not support long-term tenants or families.

City Council passed a resolution to form a committee to study possible changes to the zoning ordinance for R4C and R2A categories on July 6. But while these admittedly defective (for today’s purposes) zoning classifications remain on the books, developments are still being considered for sensitive areas. The Germantown Neighborhood Association has been lobbying for a moratorium on development under the old zoning definitions. Tom Whitaker, the president of the association, posted a number of discussions of this issue on their blog. You might suppose that since the R4C version of City Place has been temporarily set aside by the developer in favor of seeking approval for a new PUD proposal, the GNA’s urgency on a moratorium might be scaled back  Not so.  Here’s what Whitaker said in a recent email (quoted with permission; emphasis mine):

“Yet another twist to the on-going saga of City Place.  Yesterday, Alex de Parry’s attorney, Scott Munzel, sent a letter to the City requesting that they table the City Place vote until early November in order to allow time for Mr. de Parry to submit yet another PUD proposal…This proposal is the same one we were discussing with Mr. de Parry in February/March, but called off our talks when he submitted the “R4C” project, often called his “by right” project.  This alternative proposal, as Mr. de Parry would like to see it, would be much larger in terms of density – as much as 180+ occupants.  The design calls for complete demolition of one of the seven historic homes, with the rear portions of the other six demolished and the front portions dismantled and stored off-site.  Then, an underground parking structure would be built, almost to the lot lines, and a large, long gable-roofed structure built along the length of the combined parcels.  The pieces of the dismantled houses would then be brought back and attached to this new structure.  They would be spaced and ordered differently from their current configuration and nothing would remain of the original foundations or interiors.”

“The Germantown Neighborhood Association objected to some of the key elements of this plan including the destruction of the houses and the overall size of the project (both density and physical size).  Our preference has always been to see the houses restored and then supplemented with well-designed additions or perhaps carriage-house structures with additional units.  With State and Federal historic tax credits available for approved work on historically-designated buildings, we think a project could be created that would enhance the neighborhood rather than destroy it, and still provide for a reasonable profit for Mr. de Parry.  First, we would all need to work together to get our neighborhood established as an historic district.”

“We were not surprised by this last-minute maneuver on City Place.  Many of us have always felt that the “R4C” project was simply a threat being used to “encourage” the neighbors and the City to approve a much larger PUD.  In fact, it was first drawn up specifically to show at a planning commission meeting last year, when the “brownstone” PUD version of City Place was being considered.  Even while the R4C project was working its way through the approval process, Mr. de Parry’s team was calling, emailing and meeting with anyone who would give them the time of day to try and promote his newer “alternative PUD”.”

“Folks, we are all concerned about the historic character and integrity of Germantown, but this all boils down to zoning ordinances that are too weak and subject to broad interpretation.  Council knows this, which is why they voted to study the zoning in R4C/R2A in order to correct it and bring it into compliance with the Central Area Plan.  We need your continued support for the moratorium, regardless of what happens with City Place.  This issue is bigger than any single project.  The City and the neighborhood will not be off this merry-go-round until City Council calls a moratorium and proceeds rapidly with the study and correction of the zoning.  We can’t tell Mr. de Parry what to build, but if the City had its zoning in shape and compliant with the Central Area Plan, it would be clear to all what he could NOT build.”

On Monday, July 20, the Council will be considering a resolution calling for a moratorium on developments requiring a site plan in areas currently zoned R4C and R2A, while the city awaits the findings of the study committee. It does not prevent construction of projects not needing a site plan, is for up to 180 days, and has an appeal process.  Here’s hoping that Council will approve it without regard to political faction issues (Mike Anglin is its sponsor), because it is needed if we are to make our planning procedures rational, predictable, and in accordance with public will, as expressed in the Central Area Plan.

Categories: Neighborhoods
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

Another Reprieve on City Place

July 17, 2009

As explained in an earlier post,  the last configuration of City Place – a “by right” development purporting to be consistent with the current zoning of the site – was sent back to Planning Commission for technical reasons.  Council directed that the PC should review it immediately and return the proposal to Council on July 20.   Accordingly, the item appeared on next week’s agenda after an inconclusive review by PC (the vote was 5-1 to approve but 6 votes were required for approval).

Now, in yet another change of course, the developer, Alex de Parry has requested another postponement through a letter from his lawyer.    The letter states that de Parry requests that the item be postponed till the first Council meeting in November.  By then, however, he is hoping that a new PUD application will have moved through the planning process.

Many have speculated that a new PUD was de Parry’s true aim all along.  He has already seen two such proposals rejected by Council and talks with the Germantown neighbors broke down some time ago.  But apparently he is willing to believe that the third time can be the charm.

Categories: Neighborhoods
Tags:

Comments: 1 Comment

Ann Arbor in the Goldfish Bowl

July 16, 2009

We hear a lot these days about transparency and openness in government. What that refers to is having all business done in public view. That was the intent of Michigan’s Open Meetings Act and Freedom of Information Act, both enacted in the mid-1970s. The Open Meetings Act sought to make all deliberations leading to legislative decisions subject to observation by the public, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) gives the public the right to view or request copies of documents (including correspondence and notes) generated in the conduct of government business.  But that was so Seventies.  As noted by Noah Hall of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center in a recent Workantile Exchange seminar, governments often put up barriers to this access.  Hall has an impressive grasp of the tactics needed for full access and has applied them frequently in pursuing issues of interest to GLELC.  His most recent moment in the spotlight followed his FOIA of Ann Arbor City Council emails, in the context of a letter to the city regarding the parking garage planned for the Library Lot.  (We linked to some of the emails in an earlier post, and recently released emails are available here.)  The resulting flap has provided some welcome entertainment but has also revealed that the council majority has not exactly embraced the whole transparency paradigm.

Here’s the problem.  Once deliberations, negotiations, and deal-making come into view, all interested parties start to ask questions, make demands, and generally cause a fuss.  As Mayor Hieftje commented (not happily) in a DDA committee meeting I attended some years ago, “We live in a goldfish bowl”.  Transparency is inhibitory to getting business done in an efficient way.  After all, once you have all the information that you yourself require, and you know the agenda and purpose you want to pursue, why involve a lot of backseat drivers?  You don’t really need “public input”.

The council majority clearly does have a set agenda and the emails show how directly they are pursuing it.  The February 17 emails include discussions within the group heading off a possible postponement of a  resolution to authorize bonds for $55 million, partly to pay for an underground parking structure.

“The Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of financing the construction of a 677 space, four story underground parking structure and streetscape improvements along Fifth and Division Streets. The project includes a new street running west to east on the north side of the Ann Arbor Public Library, utility improvements under Fifth Avenue and Division Street, and a new downtown alley. The footprint of the project will be from the west side of Fifth Avenue to the west side of Division Street and under Fifth Ave from the northern edge of the current parking lot to William Street. The parking structure will be built in a manner to allow future construction of an up to 25-story building on the site. The project will also include the construction of streetscape improvements on Fifth Avenue and Division Streets from Beakes to Packard including improved crosswalks, new streetlights, trees, sidewalks, bike lanes, and curb.”

But prior to that February 17 vote, there were plenty of other discussions.   As was mentioned in an earlier post, a private plan for a conference center was presented at the January council retreat. Subsequently, CM Sandi Smith (only recently elected after a long tenure on the DDA Board, of which she is still a member)  issued an invitation to all her council colleagues for a January 23 meeting at the DDA office with engineers designing the underground structure. “Before this comes to council, I want to hear where the project is now. I also want to investigate the ideas about what can be built on top of the structure…”  Now, it would have been possible to make this meeting legal according to the Open Meetings Act.  The meeting could have been posted (announced on a bulletin board, at least), open to the public, and minutes could have been taken that were subsequently available to the public. I have not attempted a FOIA to establish whether or not any of these things were done.  So – potentially the entire council had a substantial discussion, prior to a formal vote, on the underground parking structure and its potential use for aboveground building, without being in the goldfish bowl. And, as we have reported,  the Council has now passed a resolution calling for an RFP for the aboveground structure (a.k.a. the conference center?).

Efficiency is satisfying.  It gets things done.  Those who employ it may even believe that they are performing a public good.  But the purpose of transparency, with its ensuing public discussion, though messy, is both to guarantee the public an opportunity to respond to major initiatives and to guarantee that good and honest decisions are being made.  I hope that the Mayor and the council majority will consider this before making additional commitments to major projects.

Note: The email transcripts published on the Neighborhood Alliance website, of which one set is linked to here,  were excerpted and edited by an individual other than myself and I cannot make any representations as to their complete accuracy, though I believe the excerpting to be a good-faith attempt.

Categories: civic finance
Tags:

Comments: 1 Comment

Jerusaleum Garden and the Character of Ann Arbor

July 11, 2009

A visit to the Ann Arbor Public Library coincided with a need for a lunch solution today, so I stopped in at Jerusaleum Garden for the first time in a while.  They seem to have a new menu and are generally looking spiffy.  I sat in the adjoining patio that they share with Earthen Jar (a vegetarian Indian restaurant that sells its food from steam tables by the pound).  It was a perfect summer day, just hot enough to make welcome a languid moment watching passersby while surrounded by diners and potted flowers.  I was also pleasantly impressed with lunch – for $15 we got a fully loaded lunch for two (leftovers will serve for a couple more days).  The tabbouli had a number of chopped vegetables, including carrots, cucumbers, and tomatoes in it, along with the required parsley in good proportion, and a light lemon dressing.  The falafel was not oily.  The yogurt salad was generously loaded with chopped cucumbers.  It was a perfect summer lunch in one of the places that gives Ann Arbor its special local character.  I hope that it is not endangered.

Think Local First has a really fun T-shirt that I first saw Steve Bean modeling at a Transition Ann Arbor meeting.  It says, “Keep Ann Arbor Funky”.  (Sadly, they were on sale at Shaman Drum, another special piece of Ann Arbor that just closed.)   I agree with the sentiment.  What is it?  “Funky” has gone through many meaning changes, including references to “funk” music.  But “characterized by originality and modishness; unconventional” or more simply, as another source gives it, “hip“, is what we are looking for here, along with an acknowledgment of a slightly down-at-the-heel character, as in the computing definition, where “(funky) is said of something that functions, but in a slightly strange, klugey way. It does the job and would be difficult to change, so its obvious non-optimality is left alone”.

Many of our beloved institutions (I’m thinking of eating places, but there are others) are like this – not always bright and shiny, but real originals that bring character to the town in a way that the newest “concept” can’t.  They are individual and irreplaceable, and they are being lost.  We have lost Red Hot Lovers (though it may re-emerge in another location).  We have lost Tios, though the restaurant has moved to McKinley’s Liberty Street complex.   Happily, Blimpy’s lives.

I can hear the boos and jeers now.   “Ann Arbor in Amber.”  (Jon Zemke of Concentrate pulled off a classic with his “amber NIMBY neighborhoods”).  Yet without anchors of its unique and personal character, Ann Arbor could be a moderately affluent suburb anywhere.   The Ann Arbor Chronicle has been finding a number of posts from other communities  (listed in their Old Media and New Media sections) where Ann Arbor is spoken of enviously.  Being called a living museum may not sound complimentary, but the artificial communities sometimes called lifestyle centers try to emulate it.  Other cities literally build theme parks trying to capture that sense of genuine character that we possess now.  (I was amused to note that Hyde Park,  the home of our current President, has Ann Arbor envy, though funkiness is not mentioned in the article.)

But can character stand up against the relentless press of development?  Look again at the picture of Zaragon Place looming over the hapless shell of Red Hot Lovers. The property has evidently become too valuable.  When the City Council begins to develop the Library Lot,  will Earthen Jar and Jerusalem Garden survive?  I hope so, else we will have lost a little bit of ourselves.

Categories: Business, Local Food
Tags: ,

Comments: 2 Comments

More Ann Arbor Media News

July 9, 2009

The media reassortments keep on coming.  The latest news over the transom was the announcement that Ann Arbor Business Review is ceasing publication and will be replaced by a new “business channel” on AnnArbor.com.  According to the story, “Ann Arbor Business Review executives said the weekly business-to-business news journal remained a strong editorial product despite a business climate that made the ongoing printing of a weekly product unsustainable”.  I have indeed found this publication to be a good source of business-oriented news, often more timely and more insightful than coverage by the old Ann Arbor News.  Apparently my paper copies will stop coming in August too.

There are now a steady parade of announcements across the top of the AnnArbor.com page, with new staff members and affiliations.  One not there but which I welcome is the addition of Jennifer Haines of a2eatwrite as the food blogger.  What I’m also not seeing is the offer I received by email yesterday.  I’m now signed up to receive

  • Daily digital newsletter
  • Weekly Deals and more
  • Daily Obituaries Update.

    • (These are three different feeds, and I can unsubscribe any time.)

The announcement said I was receiving the offer because of a prior relationship with the Ann Arbor News, MLive or Ann Arbor Business Review.  I’d guess that they will be offered to the general public once AnnArbor.com is up and running.

Categories: Trends
Tags:

Comments: 1 Comment

Conference Center: Cooked or Confusion?

July 7, 2009

As we explained previously, there are indications that a group of persons (not all known, but including city and county officials) are interested in seeing a conference center in the South Fifth and William Street area.  The earlier post has a link to a discussion of this by Roger Fraser, the Ann Arbor city administrator. In the council’s January retreat, he reported that an undisclosed group had presented a proposal for a convention center in the vicinity of the Library Lot.  Further, he noted that the group suggested that their proposal could be used as the basis for an RFP (request for proposals) issued by the city.  They humbly noted that their proposal might not be the winning proposal with such a process.  This Monday (July 6, 2009), council passed a resolution that appears to be laying the groundwork for this proposal to be considered.

The resolution, as originally put forth by Councilmembers Smith and Higgins, called for “the City Administrator to create and issue a Request for Proposals  (RFP)  for the development of the S. Fifth Ave. parking structure site” by August 3, 2009.  No further criteria for the RFP were delineated, other than that “the City Administrator shall incorporate appropriate elements of the Downtown Plan for identifying desired community objectives for the site, including open space, active uses at street level, and clear public benefits”.   It gave the administrator less than a month (until August 3) to accomplish this.  Proposals would then be due within 60 days after that.

This was a breathtaking abbreviation of the process for any meaningful discussion of how to dispose of an important city property.  First, what is the function of an RFP?  It is frequently used for procurement.  As displayed on the city’s website, various departments put out requests for suppliers to bid on everything from supplying toner cartridges to replacing water mains.  The more complex projects usually include engineering drawings, and all of them include detailed specifications to the level appropriate for the service sought.  Drawing these documents up is part boilerplate, part hard technical detail.

In recent years, the RFP process has been used to seek developers who would pay the city for property while accomplishing important civic goals.  Thus, the RFP document and its specifications in these cases are really a policy document, not a simple procurement task.  In the past, the council has turned to the DDA partnership committee (it includes city council members) to draw up a carefully tuned document that has gone through several revisions.  This type of document was used to solicit bids for replacement of the housing at the old Y, where the city hoped to use its ownership of the site to lure a developer who would satisfy all the objectives for it.  (It is now a parking lot.)  More recently, a closely held committee of mostly city staff and perhaps a couple of council members drew up the RFP for 415 W. Washington, another city property.  The RFP laid out a broad range of objectives, ranging from a monetary yield for the city to maintaining the floodway.  That project is still up in the air, since none of the three proposals received filled all the objectives.

So as a start,  the Library Lot RFP process is missing a set of clearly enunciated objectives, and a broader group of individuals, representing both citizens, elected officials, and staff, to agree on them.  While earlier RFPs stated that the city had to make money on the development deal, this resolution only suggests that outcome, and in discussion, CM Smith said it might be all right just to make sure it was “revenue neutral”.  Also, one month for preparation of the RFP and two months to respond to it are a very short period.  At a time of year when many staff and others are on vacation, this is a lot to ask if we are to expect a carefully phrased and detailed document.  Two months to respond assumes that developers have their pencils already sharpened.  And they will apparently be given very little guidance as to the objectives for the site, if the statements at council are sincere.  CM Smith said, “let’s see what kind of creative ideas are out there and see what we get”.  Discussion at council seemed to be of the “let a thousand flowers bloom” nature.  But what developer or civic group can formulate a solid proposal (these generally entail firm budgets and financial offers) in that time frame?

In discussion Monday night, CM Anglin accurately identified a couple of problems with the process.  He offered amendments to remove the time deadlines, and also to put in a public participation process, saying that the public has had no input into the desired use for this site. As he noted, “there is a feeling out there that this is a very special place”.  After a number of negative comments (several councilmembers said that the Calthorpe and A2D2 processes had been a sufficient discussion of the “core downtown area” and CM Rapundalo suggested to Anglin “if you aren’t up to speed on this, I suggest you go back and see what this body has done”), CM Briere offered some alternative amendments that included a public participation element, and CM Greden offered one that relaxed the time frame slightly. The final resolution calls for the RFP to be prepared by August 14, and to allow 90 days for responses.

Unfortunately, the public participation element appears to be ineffective, if not an outright sham.  After a lot of backing and filling, the council allowed as how the committee that would be reviewing the proposals should have a public meeting, and that there would eventually be a public hearing.  But this is a long way from a true interactive public process to determine the fate of this significant piece of public property.  (The last time the council proposed a development [a city hall] for the Library Lot, they were swamped with protests.)

So what we are left with is a poorly defined objective that is nevertheless going to happen at a rush (CM Higgins counted backwards so that a complete plan would be available by March 2010 at the latest).  And even with the extended deadline, it is difficult to see how city administration can present a sufficiently detailed and nuanced RFP, that will give clear guidance such that a wide variety of developers will spend the effort to propose innovative uses that will also enrich the city (or at least not sink us further in debt).  Unless there is already a handy draft sitting around.  After all, the mysterious conference center proposers made a offer.

Categories: civic finance
Tags:

Comments: 1 Comment

Hyper Ann Arbor

July 1, 2009

Edward Vielmetti, whose ecletic blog Vacuum is global in reach but local in focus, calls attention to new tools to “aggregate, curate, and publish” local news via Outside.in for Publishers. As I noted in an earlier post, a growing trend toward “hyperlocal” news sites is helping to fill the gap being left by the demise of traditional newspapers. These pull together numerous online news sources, including some blogs, and sometimes supplement them with governmental notices. The result is not the same as a traditional newspaper but can help people keep a good information flow about their own locality.

Ed’s post made me take a second look at the Ann Arbor version of Outside.in and it will now appear on our blogroll. It does a very decent job of pulling news stories from a number of sources, including some I am not familiar with, and giving a brief headline/summary/link in a very timely way. The link to neighborhoods was a little less successful. Using my own neighborhood (they appear to use the Ann Arbor Observer City Guide classifications, which I find less than satisfactory since my humble neighborhood is lumped with the big houses up Newport), I found that some stories were highly relevant and others (like movie reviews!) more general.

Of course, the Ann Arbor Chronicle is moving right along with this hyperlocal reporting (and is very frequently the source for Outside.in). They do some curating and aggregation themselves (the plural noun is because it is a partnership) and I find their “New Media” and “Old Media” items very helpful, where they pull news and comment from nationwide publications and local blogs.

Yet to be revealed is how effective the new mostly online news from AnnArbor.com will be. A very good piece of news is that they have hired Edward Vielmetti to be the “blogging leader”. They’ve been making a number of announcements and appointments and their apparent openness is fairly impressive. I only recently signed up on their site and took their poll, and this morning I got several updates on decisions on policy. Apparently they took all the items I gave high points to and are sending me instantaneous status updates. (I am able to turn off this feature.) If this is not all hype/marketing, it could be good.

Categories: Trends
Tags:

Comments: 2 Comments